corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 13414

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: news

Define 'lavish'
Pharmagossip 2008 Apr 2
http://pharmagossip.blogspot.com/2008/04/define-lavish.html


Full text:

Medicines Australia (MA), the drug industry lobby group, has unveiled details of how much its 42 member companies (and one non-member) spent in the last half of 2007 on each one of over 14,000 events that were designed to promote their drugs to doctors. In a backgrounder, MA claimed that under its self-regulatory code of conduct “the provision of lavish hospitality is banned.”

The actual provision sets no thresholds for what constitutes “lavish” hospitality.

However, buried in the hundreds of pages of the reports are unprecedented details of expensive drug industry events.

Roche spent $A511,791 on a three-day hepatitis symposium attended by 337 specialists at Melbourne’s Grand Hyatt hotel.

AstraZeneca forked out over $A514,000 for a weekend seminar at Crown Casino in Melbourne that was attended by 220 gastroenterologists.

Pfizer spent $A340,000 on a cardiovascular forum for 220 specialists.

$US1000 = $A1029

More (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23448242-2862,00.html)

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963